Amendments to NAO 1999: Supreme Court judge asks can a person who avoids vote in parliament move court

ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial Friday observed that every leader, while justifying his acts, seeks support of the Constitution, saying it was a political strategy of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) to boycott the proceedings of Parliament, which is also done in various countries of the world.

A three-member SC bench, headed by Chief Justice Umer Ata Bandial, and comprising Justice Ijazul Ahsen and Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, heard the petition of former prime minister and Chairman PTI Imran Khan, challenging the amendments made by the incumbent coalition government to National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) 1999.

During the course of proceedings, Justice Mansoor Ali Shah raised questions over the conduct of PTI Chairman Imran Khan and his party saying the petitioner and his party avoided participation in voting process for the NAB amendment bill.

“Whether a person avoiding voting process in the Parliament has the right to claim in a court of law, and whether a member could leave the Parliament empty,” the judge remarked.

CJ Bandial, however, questioned as to whether the court should not hear the public interest case only on the basis that the conduct of the petitioner was not correct?

While Justice Ijazul Ahsen observed that the question over the conduct of Imran could only be raised if he had a personal benefit from the NAB amendments. Apparently, there was no connection of personal interest of the petitioner with NAB amendments,” Justice Ahsen remarked.

The CJ observed that it was a political strategy of the PTI to boycott the proceedings of Parliament and it is being done also across the globe. Even there was a long history of boycott of the parliamentary proceedings in the Subcontinent.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, however, questioned as to whether boycotting the legislation process and approaching the court was not meant for weakening the parliamentary democracy.

“How it will be determined that NAB amendments were a public importance case,” Justice Mansoor questioned and further asked as to whether the public was also raising its voice against the amendments under the challenge.

The judge observed that the petitioner had not pointed out the fundamental rights that were affected through NAB amendments, adding that the counsel for the petitioner had discussed Islamic provisions as well as basic structure of the Constitution.

Counsel for federal government Makhdom Ali Khan submitted that the petitioner Imran Khan could have defeated the NAB amendments in the assembly, adding that had all the PTI members attended the joint sitting of the Parliament, they could have been in majority.

The CJ observed that the petitioner would be asked on this point; however, he questioned as to whether the court should not hear the public importance case only on the basis that the conduct of the petitioner was not correct.

“Every leader, while calling his acts as true, sought the support of the Constitution,” the CJP remarked adding that it was the PTI strategy to boycott the Parliament. The chief justice observed that it was necessary that political strategy also have legal justification, adding that sometime legal strategy turns as a foolish act politically.

Justice Mansoor Shah observed that the member of the assembly was the representative of people of the constituency and the trustee of their trust.

The judge questioned as to whether it was right for the trustee of public trust to boycott the parliament?”

Justice Ijazul Ahsen, another member of the bench, asked the counsel for federal government as to how many members approved the NAB amendments during the joint session of the Parliament.

The counsel replied 166 members were present when the NAB amendments bill was passed.

It means that less than half of the members voted in favour of the amendments, the judge remarked, adding that 446 members were required to attend the joint sitting of the Parliament.

Justice Ijazul Ahsen remarked that the petitioner had challenged the NAB amendments over violation of the fundamental rights as well as in the public interest.

Makhdom Ali Khan, however, contended that it was necessary that the amendments were challenged for personal interest, adding that the petitioner could get also political benefits by challenging the amendments.

The counsel submitted that the PTI approached the court for not approving its resignations to assembly and upon approval it also knocked the doors of the court.

Makhdom submitted that Imran Khan intentionally decided to leave the Parliament empty. At this CJ Umer Ata Bandial observed that maybe Khan knew about his failure in the Parliament; that’s why he approached the court. The counsel for federal government submitted that instead of either declaring the legislation as void or maintaining it, the court could also return it as well.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah observed that a person had challenged the NAB amendments and it was possible that other members of PTI might be in its favour (amendments).

Meanwhile, the court adjourned the hearing until February 14.